[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <533a25a0-e1a1-447a-a0ea-7fad0e02c28a@lunn.ch>
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2024 17:23:08 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
Cc: Russell King <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 RFC 2/5] ethtool: switch back from ethtool_keee to
ethtool_eee for ioctl
> static int ethtool_get_eee(struct net_device *dev, char __user *useraddr)
> {
> - struct ethtool_keee edata;
> + struct ethtool_keee keee;
> + struct ethtool_eee eee;
> int rc;
>
> if (!dev->ethtool_ops->get_eee)
> return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>
> - memset(&edata, 0, sizeof(struct ethtool_keee));
> - edata.cmd = ETHTOOL_GEEE;
> - rc = dev->ethtool_ops->get_eee(dev, &edata);
With the old code, the edata passed to the driver has edata.cmd set to
ETHTOOL_GEEE.
> -
> + memset(&keee, 0, sizeof(keee));
> + rc = dev->ethtool_ops->get_eee(dev, &keee);
Here, its not set. I don't know if it makes a difference, if any
driver actually looks at it. If you reviewed all the drivers and think
this is O.K, i would suggest a comment in the commit message
explaining this.
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists